Uppsala Universitet Statsvetenskapliga Institutionen Year: Spring 2020 Differing Motivations in the International System A Comparative Case Study of Sweden and Poland regarding participation in the international interventions in Iraq 2003 and Libya 2011 Name: Adam Gadd Supervisor: Joakim Kreutz Words: 11551 Abstract The purpose of this thesis is to examine what factors cause states to engage or not engage in military interventions. More specifically this thesis aims to highlight these factors by focusing on the contrasting decisions of Sweden and Poland regarding the 2003 Invasion of Iraq and the 2011 Intervention in Libya. The research question of this thesis is as follows: Why did Poland participate in the 2003 Invasion of Iraq whilst Sweden did not and why did Sweden participate in the 2011 military intervention in Libya whilst Poland did not? The theoretical departure point is that norms influence the decisions of states when deciding on intervention or non-intervention. The empirical analysis is performed through a qualitative text analysis of a combination of Swedish and Polish materials. The analysis shows the results that Sweden is more heavily influenced by the norms of humanitarian intervention and responsibility to protect than Poland and that Poland has a more emphasized focus on improving territorial defence through participation in military interventions. Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 RESEARCH AIM & RESEARCH QUESTION .............................................................................................................................. 2 1.3 PREVIOUS RESEARCH AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK .................................................................................................. 2 1.3.1 Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................................................................................... 6 2. METHOD .......................................................................................................................................................................... 8 2.1 CASE STUDY ................................................................................................................................................................................... 8 2.2 COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ..................................................................................................................................................... 9 2.2.1 Selection of Cases ............................................................................................................................................................... 9 2.3 QUALITATIVE TEXT ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................................................. 10 2.4 MATERIALS .................................................................................................................................................................................. 11 2.5 OPERATIONALIZATION .............................................................................................................................................................. 13 2.6 VARIABLES ................................................................................................................................................................................... 14 2.6.1 Authorized by the United Nations Security Council .............................................................................................. 14 2.6.2 National Security Benefits .............................................................................................................................................. 14 2.6.3 Humanitarian Goal and/or R2P ................................................................................................................................... 14 3. EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................................... 15 3.1 BACKGROUND TO THE INTERVENTIONS .............................................................................................................................. 15 3.1.1 Case 1: The Invasion of Iraq ......................................................................................................................................... 15 3.1.2 Case 2: The Intervention in Libya ............................................................................................................................... 16 3.2. SWEDISH PARTICIPATION IN MILITARY INTERVENTIONS .............................................................................................. 17 3.3 SWEDISH NON-PARTICIPATION IN IRAQ ............................................................................................................................... 18 3.4 SWEDISH PARTICIPATION IN LIBYA ...................................................................................................................................... 19 3.5 POLISH PARTICIPATION IN MILITARY INTERVENTIONS ................................................................................................... 20 3.6 POLISH PARTICIPATION IN IRAQ ............................................................................................................................................. 21 3.8 POLISH NON-PARTICIPATION IN LIBYA ................................................................................................................................ 22 3.9 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................................................ 23 4. CONCLUSIONS & FURTHER RESEARCH ....................................................................................................... 26 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................................................. 28 APPENDIX ......................................................................................................................................................................... 34 1. Introduction 1.1 Background Ever since the end of the Second World War, interstate wars have become less and less common. States have however continued to participate in armed conflicts, often far from their own borders through various military interventions. For many states in Europe, the only experience of armed conflict during the 75 years since the end of the Second World War has been in the form of participating in armed interventions (Roser, 2020). This begs the question, why do states that do not need to experience armed conflict continuously engage in interventions in conflict zones around the world? During the Cold War, European states tended to focus their armed forces on territorial defence and preparation and deterrence for potential conflict against Nato or the Warsaw Pact, depending on which side of the Iron Curtain a state happened to find itself. This would however change with the end of the Cold War as the focus for many states shifted to participation in expeditionary operations around the world (Rickli, 2008, p. 307). This new focus was however not uniform in the sense that European countries have chosen to participate and not participate in different interventions, often creating a divided map. Two European states that have been active in armed operations around the world throughout the three decades since the end of the Cold War are Sweden and Poland (Ministerstwo Obrony Narodowej, undated, & Försvarsmakten, 2020). As is the case with all European countries, Sweden and Poland have chosen to intervene in different conflicts, but what are the reasons for Sweden and Poland to participate in such interventions? What has motivated Swedish and Polish policy makers when making decisions to participate or not participate in armed conflicts? Whilst these two countries have been part of various different interventions, there are also two that for several reasons stand out amongst the rest. Those are Poland’s participation in the 2003 Invasion of Iraq and Sweden’s participation in the 2011 Libya Intervention. Noticeably as well is that in both of these cases the other country chose not to participate. The contrasting decisions made by Swedish and Polish policy makers in these two cases highlights that there must exist some difference or differences in why Sweden and Poland participate in interventions. 1 1.2 Research Aim & Research Question The importance of gaining a deeper understanding of why states choose to intervene is twofold. Firstly, understanding the motivations of states in intervening is imperative to being able to evaluate under what conditions states will intervene or abstain from intervening. Secondly, the motivations of states when intervening can influence the actions of intervening states in conflicts, and thus result in different consequences. Military interventions have resulted in widely different outcomes ranging from ending a conflict, prolonging a conflict or creating a conflict. Thus